THE TRANSLOCATION OF CALCIUM 
IN A SOIL 



A THESIS 

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



BY 



BENJAMIN DUNBAR WILSON 



FEBRUARY, 1918 



Reprinted from Memoir 1 7. December, 1918 of Cornell University Afir'ultural 
Experiment Station 



THE TRANSLOCATION OF CALCIUM 
IN A SOIL 



A THESIS 

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



BY 
BENJAMIN DUNBAR WILSON 



FEBRUARY, 1918 



Reprinted from Memoir 17. December, 1918 of Cornell University Agricultural 
Experiment Station 



^s 






CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Review of literature 299 

Experimental work 301 

Plan of the investigation 301 

Soil used 302 

Method of placing soil in pots 304 

Treatment of pots 305 

Experiments 1 and 2 306 

Bicarbonate (HC0 3 ) content of the drainage water 308 

Experiment 3 309 

Method of sampling pots for analysis of calcium 310 

Interpretation of analytical data 316 

Results of experiment 1 319 

Results of experiments 2 and 3 321 

Summary 322 

Conclusion 323 

Acknowledgment 323 

Literature cited 324 



295 



THE TRANSLOCATION OF CALCIUM IN A SOIL 



THE TRANSLOCATION OF CALCIUM IN A SOIL 
Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 

The presence of calcium in soil is of extreme importance. The action 
of this element, when applied in different chemical combinations to soil, 
has been investigated extensively. In spite of the fact that much has 
been written on the subject of calcium in soil, it is evident from a review 
of the literature that the movement of calcium in soil has received but 
little attention. Definite information in relation to the translocation 
of calcium in soil, under carefully controlled laboratory or field condi- 
tions, is unsupplied. 

The present investigation was undertaken in an attempt to answer the 
following questions: (1) Does the calcium applied to a soil move down- 
ward or does it remain in the upper few inches of soil? (2) If the calcium 
does move downward, to what extent does it move? 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

The only study that has been made on the downward movement of 
calcium in soils under controlled laboratory conditions, so far as the 
writer has been able to discover, is that of Brought on (1912). 1 In that 
experiment the movement of calcium thru sandy, loam, and clay soils 
was determined, the calcium being applied in different forms. It was 
found that the movement of calcium thru a soil was governed largely 
by the physical constitution of the latter, the calcium salts diffusing most 
rapidly thru a sandy soil, less rapidly thru a loam soil, and only slightly 
thru a clay soil. Some of the differences which the author reports in the 
movement of calcium, resulting from the different treatments that were 
used, might have disappeared had the treatments been repeated a greater 
number of times ; also, the method employed for sampling pots at different 
intervals necessitated a disturbance of the soils within the pots, which 
may have resulted in some mechanical movement of calcium. 

Several investigators have endeavored to determine the translocation 
of calcium in field soils by comparing the quantity of calcium found at 



Dates in parenthesis refer to Literature cited, page 324. 

299 



300 Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 

different depths in soils that had received an application of calcium in some 
form with that in other soils of the same type that had not been treated 
with any form of calcium. Mclntire (1913) analyzed a silty loam soil 
for calcium at different depths from plats that had received large appli- 
cations of either calcium oxid or calcium carbonate for a period of thirty 
years. From a comparison of the calcium found in the treated soil 
with that found in the soil from adjacent untreated plats, it was con- 
cluded that calcium applied in either form at the surface of such soil 
moves downward very slowly, most of it remaining for years in the 
surface soil. 

The analyses for calcium carbonate in the surface soils and subsoils of 
Broadbalk and Hoos fields at Rothamsted, which have been made at dif- 
ferent times since 1865 as reported by Hall and Miller (1905), show that 
the subsoils have decreased in calcium, as well as the surface soils, which 
latter had received large applications of calcium previous to 1865 and 
which since that time have received yearly, for more than fifty years, 
the same fertilizer treatments. The results indicate that there has been 
no accumulation of calcium in the subsoils, altho there seems to be a 
tendency for an increase in the subsoils where ammonium sulfate has been 
applied from year to year to the surface soils. 

Veitch (1904) studied the downward movement of calcium in soils by 
determining the soil acidity at varied depths. The results of his investi- 
gation showed that when calcium oxid was applied to soils its neutral- 
izing effect was exerted only to the depth to which it was incorporated 
with the soils during the various processes of preparation and culti- 
vation. 

Ames and Schollenberger (1916) present data to show the depth of soil 
affected by applications of calcium salts. Soils that had been so treated 
were sampled at different depths and their lime requirements determined 
by the Hopkins and vacuum methods. The indications were that light 
applications of lime have considerable effect on the subsoil, at least to a 
depth of twenty-four inches. 

White (1914) reports, from studies made on soils in the field, that 
calcium does not move horizontally to any considerable degree by diffusion, 
as soil rich in calcium carbonate was found within eighteen inches of soil 
distinctly acid. 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 301 

•King (1904) studied the capillary movement of calcium thru soils by 
filling galvanized cylinders, provided with reservoirs at their bases, with 
different types of soil. A calcium solution applied at the bottom of the 
soil columns was permitted to rise by capillarity thru the soils. The 
results of the experiment tended to show that there was a slight upward 
movement of calcium. 

A comparison of the calcium content of surface and subsurface soils 
as reported by Smith (1884), Snyder (1899), Ames and Gaither (1913), 
Shorey, Fry, and Hazen (1917), and others, does not permit of any general 
conclusion as to whether surface soils or subsurface soils contain the 
greater amount of calcium. Consequently such a consideration is of no 
value in a study of the translocation of calcium in soil. 

A review of the literature reveals the fact that the studies thus far 
made on the movement of calcium in soil have been confined almost 
entirely to field experimentation and have been carried on as side experi- 
ments. Results obtained under such conditions are not absolute. The 
calcium content of soils is not always constant, and in comparing one 
soil with another this fact alone may lead to erroneous conclusions. 

Some investigators have used a method for the determination of lime 
requirement as a measure of calcium in soils. Such a practice is open 
to criticism, as a lime requirement is an estimation of the absorptive 
power of a soil for basic material, not a measure of its calcium content. 
If calcium should liberate any of the soil bases, such a reaction might 
account for any decrease found in the lime requirement of the subsoil 
rather than the actual downward movement of calcium. 

As previously stated, very little experimental evidence is available 
concerning the movement of calcium in soil under carefully controlled 
conditions. In view of this fact the experiments detailed herein were 
undertaken. 

EXPERIMENTAL WORK 

Plan of the investigation 

The investigation consisted of three experiments. These are briefly 
outlined as follows: 

Experiment 1. — In the first experiment the translocation of calcium 
in soil was studied by leaching soil contained in pots with distilled water. 
The soil was placed in the pots in three layers. In some of the pots 



302 Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 

calcium as oxid, and in others calcium as carbonate, was incorporated 
with the surface layer to test the possible downward movement of this 
element; in other pots the calcium was mixed with the bottom layer of 
soil to determine its tendency to move upward. The downward move- 
ments of calcium oxid and calcium carbonate, when applied to a soil in 
medium, large, and excessive amounts and in equivalent quantities of 
calcium, were collated. The oxid was added as burned limestone, and 
the carbonate as ground limestone and precipitated calcium carbonate. 2 
The state of division of the ground limestone used in the experiment 
was such that it passed thru a 100-mesh sieve and was held on a 200-mesh 
sieve. One set of the pots was leached for six months and another set 
for one year, and at the end of each period the layers of soil in each pot 
were analyzed for total calcium in contemplation of determining its 
movement. The experiment was set up in quadruplicate. 

Experiment 2. — In the second experiment the downward movement of 
calcium was determined when lots of ground limestone, differing in 
fineness of division, were applied to the soil in equivalent quantities. 
Pots filled with soil in three layers were treated with the ground limestone 
in the top layer, and were leached with distilled water for one year. 
Limestone of four grades of fineness was used in treating the different 
pots, the treatment with each grade being repeated four times. 

Experiment 3. — In the third experiment a comparative study was 
made of the diffusibility of calcium in a cropped and an uncropped soil. 
Pots were filled with soil arranged in layers, treated in the surface layer 
with burned limestone, and leached with distilled water for five months. 

Soil used 

The soil used in the investigation was a Dunkirk clayey silt loam, a 
glacial till soil low in organic matter. It comprises the greater part of 
the soil on the farm of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment 
Station, and for this reason it was selected for study. A chemical and a 
mechanical analysis of this soil, taken from the files of the Department 
of Soil Technology, Cornell University, follow: 

- Twice as much ground limestone as burned limestone was applied to the pots. Consequently the 
quantity of calcium added to the pots treated with ground limestone was slightly in excess of that added 
to the pots that received a treatment of burned limestone. As it is customary when applying calcium to 
field soils to follow such a procedure, this ratio was used in experiments 1 and 2. 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



303 



Chemical Analysis (Bulk) 

(An average of the analyses of nine samples) 

Surface per cent 

Organic carbon 1 . 670 

Carbon dioxid : Trace 

Potassium oxid 1 . 740 

Calcium oxid 0.430 

Magnesium oxid . 450 

Sodium oxid 1 .090 

Nitrogen 0. 186 

Phosphoric anhydrid . 123 

Mechanical Analysis 

(An average of the analyses of three samples) 

Surface per cent 

Fine gravel 0.5 

Coarse sand 0.8 

Medium sand 0.6 

Fine sand 2.7 

Very fine sand 9.5 

Silt 67.3 

Clay 18.6 

Total 100.0 



A large quantity of soil was necessary to carry out the experiments, 
and this was collected at three different times. For convenience, the 
three soils thus obtained are designated as X, Y, and Z. Soil X was 
used for experiment 1, soil Y for experiment 2, and soil Z for experiment 
3. All three soils were surface soils taken from a roadside adjoining 
Caldwell Field, a part of the experiment station farm. Each lot was 
taken to the greenhouse, where it was screened and thoroly mixed, the 
screenings being discarded. The three soils were in good physical 
condition. 

A representative sample was taken from each of the soils and prepared 
for analysis. The lime requirement and the calcium content of each are 



304 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



shown in table 1. The lime requirements were determined by the Veitch 
(1904) method, and are expressed as parts per million of calcium oxid 
necessary to correct the acidity in the oven-dried soils. Calcium was 
determined as recommended by the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
tion (Ames and Gaither, 1913). This method was used for all the deter- 
minations of calcium that were made thruout the investigation, and 
consists essentially in fusing the soil with a mixture of sodium and potas- 
sium carbonates, precipitating the calcium as calcium oxalate after the 
removal of silicon, iron, aluminum, and manganese, and titrating the 
filtered precipitate with a standard solution of potassium permanganate. 



TABLE 1. Lime Requirements and Percentages of Calcium in Soils X, Y, and Z 



Soil 


Lime require- 
ment of dry soil 
(parts per 
million CaO) 


Percentage 
of total 
calcium 


X 


900 

800 

1,300 


0.328 


Y 


0.300 


z 


0.220 







Method of placing soil in pots 

Glazed earthen pots 10 inches in height and 9| inches in inside diameter 
were used for the experiments. In each pot was placed thirteen kilograms 
of soil to form three layers. Of the eighty pots used, seventy-two were 
filled in the following manner: Into the bottom of each pot was packed 
five kilograms of soil, which formed the bottom, or third, layer. Over 
the surface of this layer a piece of wire netting was placed, and on top 
of it another five-kilogram portion of soil was packed, which constituted 
the middle, or second, layer. The remaining three kilograms of soil made 
up the top, or first, layer, which was separated from the middle, or second, 
layer by a second piece of wire netting. The calcium oxid or calcium 
carbonate with which the pots were treated was incorporated with the 
soil making up the first layer before this was placed in the pots. 

The remaining eight pots were filled with soil so placed that the upward 
movement of calcium could be studied. In order to observe this move- 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



305 



ment, the three-kilogram portions of soil containing the calcium treat- 
ments were placed in the bottom of the pots, the top and middle layers 
consisting of five kilograms each. The layers were separated with wire 
netting, as described above. 

The soil was placed in the pots in layers in order that the calcium- 
treated soil might be separated from the untreated soil, as well as for a 
division of the latter, when the pots were opened. The object in dividing 
the untreated soil into layers was to make possible a comparison of the 
amounts of calcium in them with reference to their distance from the 
calcium -treated soil. 

Treatment of pots 

The treatment of the pots in the three experiments may be outlined 
as follows: 

Experiment 1. Translocation of Calcium Oxid and Calcium Carbonate in Soil 



Nos. of pots 



Treatment 
(pounds per acre) 



Treated 
layer 



1, 2, 3, 4 

5,6,7,8 

9, 10, 11, 12. 
13, 14, 15, 16 

17, 18, 19, 20 
21, 22, 23, 24 

25, 26, 27, 28 

29, 30, 31, 32 
33, 34, 35, 36 

37, 38, 39, 40 
41, 42, 43, 44 

45, 46, 47, 48 
49, 50, 51, 52 

53, 54, 55, 56 



3,000 CaO. . . 
3,000 CaO... 

9,000 CaO... 
9,000 CaO. . . 

15,000 CaO.. 
15,000 CaO.. 

15,000 CaO.. 

6,000 CaC0 3 . 
6,000 CaC0 3 . 

18,000 CaC0 3 
18,000 CaCOj 

30,000 CaCOs 
30,000 CaCOs 

30,000 CaC0 3 



Top 
Top 

Top 
Top 

Top 
Top 

Bottom 

Top 
Top 

Top 
Top 

Top 
Top 

Bottom 



306 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



Experiment 2. Downward Movement of Ground Limestone of Different Degrees 

of Fineness thru Soil 



Nos. of pots 


Treatment 
(pounds per acre) 


Fineness of limestone 


57, 58, 59, 60 

61, 62, 63, 64 

65, 66, 67, 68 

69, 70, 71, 72 


9,000 CaCOs 

9,000 CaCOa 

9,000 CaCO* 

9,000 precipitated 
CaCOa 


Thru 10-mesh sieve, held on 

32-mesh sieve 
Thru 50-mesh sieve, held on 

100-mesh sieve 
Thru 200-mesh sieve 



Experiment 3. 



Downward Movement of Burned Limestone thru Soil Cropped 
and uncropped 



Nos. of pots 



Treatment 
(pounds per acre) 



73, 74, 75, 76. 

77, 78, 79, 80. 



3,000 CaO. 
3,000 CaO. 



Planted (oats) 
Unplanted 



Experiments 1 and 2 

The pots included in experiments 1 and 2 were leached with distilled 
water equivalent to a yearly rainfall of thirty-six inches. Of these seventy- 
two pots the following were leached for six months: 5, 6, 7, 8; 13, 14, 15, 
16; 21, 22, 23, 24; 33, 34, 35, 36; 41, 42, 43, 44; 49, 50, 51, 52. All the 
others were leached for one year. The pots leached for six months and 
those leached for one year received a treatment of twenty-one and forty- 
two liters of distilled water, respectively. The first treatment of water 
was applied to the pots on December 22, 1915. The dates and the amounts 
of the subsequent treatments are shown in table 2. 

No water was applied after June 10 to the pots that were leached for 
six months. These pots were allowed to drain until June 28, which was 
just six months after the first drainage water had leached from them. 
The soil was then prepared for the analysis of total calcium as is described 
later. The pots leached for one year were sampled during the first week 
in January of 1917. 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



307 



TABLE 2. 



Date of Treatment and Amount of Distilled Wateb Applied to Pots 
of Experiments 1 and 2 





Date 


Amount of water applied 
(in cubic centimeters) 


No. of treatment 


Pots leached 

for six 
months 


Pots leached 

for twelve 

months 


1 


1915 
December 22 
December 28 

1916 
January 5 
January 8 
January 18 
February 14 
February 21 
March 6 
March 20 
April 10 
April 24 
May 6 
May 8 
May 22 
May 29 
June 10 
June 27 
Julv 11 
July 27 
August 17 
August 31 
October 3 
October 10 
October 24 
November 6 
November 20 
November 22 
December 1 
December 10 


600 
1,100 

1,100 
1,100 

800 
2.400 

800 
1.600 
1,600 
2,400 
1,600 
1,600 

800 
1,600 

800 
1,100 


600 


2 


1,100 


3 


1,100 


4 

5 


1,100 
800 


6 


2,400 


7 


800 


8 


1,600 


9 


1,600 


10 


2,400 


11 


1,600 


12 


1,600 


13 


800 


14 


1,600 


15 


800 


16 


1,100 


17 


1,600 


18 




1,600 


19 




1,600 


20 




2,400 


21 




1,600 


22 




2,400 


23 




800 


24 




2,400 


25 




1,600 


26 




1,600 


27... . 




800 


28 




1,000 


29... 




1,600 








Total 




21.000 


42,000 









The drainage from the pots was collected in granite-ware pans, the pots 
being supported on wooden blocks (fig. 72). The water passed from the 
bottom of the pots thru round openings about one-half inch in diameter. 
To prevent the soil from washing thru these apertures, a small paraffined 
flowerpot was inverted over them before the soil was placed in the pots. 



308 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



This arrangement afforded excellent drainage. In all the experiments a 
quartz-sand mulch one-half inch thick, placed on the surface of the soil, 
prevented evaporation from the pots. 

Bicarbonate (HC0 3 ) content of the drainage water 

The amount of bicarbonate (HC0 3 ) contained in the drainage water 
from the pots leached for one year was determined frequently during the 
investigation. Samples for analysis were collected in small Erlenmeyer 




Fig. 72. arrangement of pots for leaching 

flasks placed in such a manner as to catch the teachings as they came 
from the pots. It was evident that the bicarbonate content of the solutions 
would depend somewhat on the amount of percolation that had occurred 
immediately before the samples were collected for analysis, but this fact 
was not objectionable as the determinations were made only that some 
idea of the abundance of the bicarbonate in the leachings might be known. 
It is seen from table 3 that the quantities of bicarbonate found in the 
drainage water from the pots, expressed in parts per million of solution, 
were sufficient to exert considerable influence on the solubility of the 
calcium oxid or calcium carbonate with which the pots were treated, and 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



309 



would lead one to believe that the water applied to the surface of the soil 
in the pots passed downward thru the soil, not between the soil and the 
sides of the pots. 

TABLE 3. Bicarbonate (HCO3) Content of Drainage Water from Pots Leached 
with Distilled Water for One Year 

(Average for similarly treated pots in parts per million of solution) 



Nos. 
of pots 



1 to 4 . 
to 12. 
17 to 20. 

29 to 32 . 
37 to 40 . 

45 to 48 . 

57 to 60 . 
61 to 04 . 



65 to 68 . 
09 to 72 . 



Treatment 
(pounds per acre) 



3,000 CaO 

9,000 CaO 

15,000 CaO 

6,000 CaC0 3 

18,000 CaC0 3 

30,000 CaCOa 

9,000 CaCO,, thru 10- 
mesh, held on 32-mesh. 

9,000 CaC0 3 , thru 50- 
mesh, held on 100- 
mesh 

9,000 CaCOs, thru 200- 
mesh 

9,000 precipitated 
CaC0 3 



Jan. 
18 



139 
125 
132 

144 
165 
141 



109 

83 
104 
128 



Date of collection of drainage water 



Feb. Mar. 
21 20 



112 
113 
135 

112 
125 
130 



92 

71 
100 
115 



110 

92 

139 

82 

88 

113 



87 

55 

82 
01 



Apr. 
10 



74 

82 

143 

56 
71 

82 



61 

58 
64 
68 



June 
10 



162 
163 
266 

121 

111 

91 



81 

53 
94 
92 



July Aug. 
11 17 



155 

200 
279 

121 

127 

82 



69 

51 
81 
81 



56 

74 

139 

41 
51 
55 



35 

30 
63 

44 



Oct. 
3 



42 

60 
122 

39 
37 
34 



28 

21 
32 
30 



Nov. 
6 



99 
125 

188 

77 
73 
60 



35 

32 
63 
39 



Experiment 3 

As previously stated, the object of experiment 3 was to determine the 
effect of a crop on the downward movement of calcium in soil. Eight 
pots were used for this purpose. The soil was placed in them in three 
layers, as has been described, and each pot received a treatment of burned 
limestone equivalent to an application of 3000 pounds to the acre. The 
experiment was begun on February 18, 1916, when four of the pots were 
planted to oats. Thirty seeds, which had been previously sterilized 
with a solution of calcium hypochlorite as suggested by Wilson (1915) 
were planted in each of the four pots, and the plants were thinned to 
twelve in a pot on February 26. The crop was harvested on July 18, 
just five months after it was planted and about the time when the grain 



310 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



was ripe. There was a good stand of oats on all the planted pots at the 
time when the crop was harvested. 

The four implanted pots were leached with distilled water at the same 
rate as were those in the foregoing experiments, which amounted to 
17^ liters for five months. It was necessary to add more water to the pots 
on which the plants were grown, to make up for that lost by transpiration. 
During the period of growth 25| liters of distilled water was applied to 
these pots. In table 4 are shown the amount of water applied to the 
planted and the implanted pots from time to time during the experiment, 
and the dates of its application: 

TABLE 4. Dates of Treatment and Amounts of Distilled Water Applied to Pots 

of Experiment 3 



No. of treatment 


Date 


Amount of water applied 
(in cubic centimeters) 




Planted 
pots 


Unplanted 
pots 


1 


1916 
February 19 
February 26 
March 5 
March 11 
March 24 
April 10 
April 24 
May 4 
May 6 
May 13 
May 20 
May 26 
June 3 
June 14 
June 17 
June 27 
July 8 


1,000 

800 

800 

1,000 

1,000 

1,600 

1,600 

800 

2,400 

800 

2,400 

800 

2,400 

800 

2,400 

2,400 

2,500 


1,000 


2 


800 


3 


800 


4 


1,000 


5 


1,000 


6 


1,600 


7 


1,600 


8 




9 


800 


10 




11.. 


1,600 


12 




13 


1,600 


14 




15 


1,600 


16 


1,600 


17 


2,500 






Total ... 




25,500 


17,500 









Method of sampling pots for analysis of calcium 

When the last application of water had drained from the pots, the 
quartz-sand mulch was removed from the surface of the soil and the pots 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



311 



were allowed to stand for several days in this condition until the soil was 
dry enough to be in a good workable condition. A large spatula was 
used to loosen the soil from the sides of the pots, and by this means it 
was possible, when inverting the pots, to slide the soil from them as a 
solid cylindrical mass (fig. 73). In order to guard against the possibility 
that calcium salts might have been carried down mechanically, during 
the course of the experiments, between the soil and the sides of the pots, 
the outside soil of. the entire soil mass was removed with a knife, leaving 
what might be called an inner core of soil. This inner soil core was 




Fig. 73. cores of soil as they came from the pots, before and after division 



divided into three layers by inserting a spatula where the pieces of wire 
netting had been placed in the soil at the time when the pots were filled 
(fig. 74). The three layers thus obtained were placed in different 
receptacles, and a representative sample taken from each of them was 
air-dried. A portion of this air-dried sample was passed thru a 32-mesh 
sieve, oven-dried over night, and finally placed in an air-tight eight-ounce 
bottle, which was set aside until the soil could be analyzed for total 
calcium according to the method already described (page 304). 

None of the soil layers into which some form of calcium had been 
placed were analyzed for this constituent at the end of the experiments, 



312 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 




Fig. 74. left: the bottom of a core of soil. 

right: a core of soil divided into its three layers, showing wire 

netting used 

but the amount of calcium present in them at the beginning of the experi- 
ments is given in tables 5 to 9. The percentages of calcium found in 
the analyzed layers at the end of the experiments are taken as an indi- 
cation of the translocation of this element thru the soil, and are also given 
in the tables. 

TABLE 5. Experiment 1 — Percentages of Calcium in Second and Third Layers 
of Soil from Pots Leached with Distilled "Water for Six Months 

(Calcium treatments placed in first layer of soil) 





No. 
of 
pot 


Per cent of calcium in soil layers 




Treatment 
(pounds 
per acre) 


Begin- 
ning of 
experi- 
ment 


End of 
experiment 


Arithmetic mean 


Treat- 
ment 
desig- 
nation 




First 
layer 


Second 
layei- 


Third 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 




3,000 CaO... 
6,000 CaCOa. 


1*1 
U) 

IS) 

ill 


0.69 
0.73 


r .37 

.40 
.33 

1 .38 

f .34 
.34 

1 .27 
1 .31 


.41] 
.38 i 
.39 
.38] 

.281 
.28 
.33 f 
.29 j 


370±.0098 
.315±.0122 


.390 ±.0049 
.295±.0085 


A 

A, 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 

TABLE 5 (concluded) 



313 





No. 

of 

pot 




Per cent of calcium in soil laye 


rs 




Treatment 
(pounds 
per acre) 


Begin- 
ning of 
experi- 
ment 


End of 
experiment 


Arithmetic mean 


Treat- 
ment 
desig- 
nation 




First 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 




9,000 CaO... 
18,000 CaC0 3 


r i3i 

14 1 

15 f 

I 16 J 

[41] 
42 

43 
1 44 J 


1.41 
1.54 


f .37 
.31 
.39 

[ .35 

f .33 
I .29 
] .32 
I .32 


.32] 
.32 [ 
.33 
.35 J 

.331 
.31 1 
.33 
.33 J 


355±.0122 
315±.0061 


330±.0049 
325±.0036 


B 
B, 


15,000 CaO.. 
30,000 CaCOa 


III 

111 


2.12 
2.33 


r .37 

.38 
1 .39 

{ .40 

( .30 
J .33 
1 .29 
I .32 


.371 
.37 1 
.37 f 

.35 J 

.31) 
.35 1 
.32 f 

.38 J 


. 385 ±. 0049 
310±0073 


.365±.0036 
340±0122 


C 

c, 



314 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



TABLE 6. Experiment 1 — Percentages of Calcium in Second and Third Layers 
of Soil from Pots Leached with Distilled Water for One Year 

(Calcium treatments placed in first layer of soil) 





No. 

of 
pot 


Per cent of calcium in soil layers 




Treatment 
(pounds 
per acre) 


Begin- 
ning of 
experi- 
ment 


End of 
experiment 


Arithmetic mean 


Treat- 
ment 
desig- 
nation 




First 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 




3,000 CaO... 
6,000 CaCO-3. 


{ 1] 

1 2 
1 3 

1 4J 

f 29 "I 

J 30 I 
81 

I 32 J 


0.69 
0.73 


r .35 

1 .34 

.37 

1 .30 

f .32 
.32 

I .26 
1 .31 


.32) 

.36 

.38 

.32 J 

.25) 
.30 1 
.29 
.33 J 


340±.0098 
.303±.0103 


.345±.0122 
.293±0109 


D 
D, 


9,000 CaO... 
18,000 CaC0 3 


f 91 

10 

11 
I 12 J 

(SI 


1.41 
1.54 


f .30 
.33 
.30 

1 .29 

{ .33 
.33 
.32 

1 .30 


.291 
.31 
.33 
.28 J 

.35) 
.30 1 
.32 
.27 J 


.305±.0061 
.320±.0049 


.303 ±.0085 
.310±0122 


E 
E, 


15,000 CaO.. 
30,000 CaCOa 


(I) 

(I! 


2.12 
2.33 


f .34 

1 .32 

| .30 

i .34 

f .31 
.29 
.30 

1 .27 


.39) 
.30 

.34 
.33 J 

.27) 
.27 
.27 
.28 J 


325±.0073 
293±.0061 


.340±0122 
273±.O019 


F 
Pi 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



315 



TABLE 7. Experiment 1 — Percentages of Calcium in First and Second Layers 
of Soil from Pots Leached with Distilled Water for One Year 

(Calcium treatments placed in third layer of soil) 





No. 
of 
pot 


Per cent of calcium in soil layers 




Treatment 
(pounds 
per acre) 


Begin- 
ning of 
experi- 
ment 


End of 
experiment 


Arithmetic mean 


Treat- 
ment 
desig- 
nation 




Third 
layer 


First 
layer 


Second 
layer 


First 
layer 


Second 
layer 




15,000 CaO.. 
30,000 CaC0 3 


(II 

(SI 


2.12 
2.33 


r .32 

1 .32 

.34 

{ .29 

f .29 

I .29 

.31 

{ .31 


.301 
.33 
.35 f 

.28 J 

.351 
.32 
.28 f 
.30 J 


.318±.0066 
.300±.0049 


.315±.0122 
.313±.0109 


G 
G, 



TABLE 8. Experiment 2 — Percentages of Calcium in Second and Third Layers 
of Soil from Pots Leached with Distilled Water for One Year 

(Calcium treatments placed in first layer of soil) 





Fineness 

of 
limestone 


No. of 
pot 


Per cent of calcium in soil layers 




Treatment 
(pounds 
per acre) 


Begin- 
ning of 
experi- 
ment 


End of 
experiment 


Arithmetic mean 


Treat- 
ment 
desig- 
nation 




First 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 




9,000 CaCOs 


Thru 10-mesh, 

held on 32- 

mesh 


f 57 ] 

58 

59 
I 60 J 


0.91 


f .36 
.30 
.32 

( .33 


.32 1 
.33 ( 
.35 

31 J 


.328 ±0085 


.328 ±.0061 


H 


9,000 CaCOa 


Thru 50-mesh, 

held on 100- 

mesh 


f 61 ) 

62 

63 
( 64 J 


0.91 


f .28 
.30 
.29 

( .27 


.27 1 
.28 
.25 
.26 J 


.285 ±.0049 


.265 ±.0049 


I 


9,000 CaCOs 


Thru 200-mesh 


( 65 1 
J 66 1 
1 67 
(68 J 


0.91 


f .29 
.32 
.27 

( -31 


.28 1 
.32 
.29 
.29 J 


.298 ±.0085 


.295 ±.0061 


J 


9,000 CaCOs 


Precipitated 
CaCOs 


f 69 ] 
70 
71 

I 72 J 


0.91 


1 . 33 
.28 
.35 

( .28 


.29 1 
.28 
.33 1 
.29 J 


.310 ±.0146 


.298 ±.0081 


K 



316 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



TABLE 9. Experiment 3 — Percentages of Calcium in Second and Third Layers 
of Cropped and Uncropped Soil from Pots Leached with Distilled Water for 
Five Months 

(Calcium treatments placed in first layer of soil) 





Planted 

or 

unplanted 


No. of 
pot 


Per cent of calcium in soil layers 




Treatment 
(pounds 
per acre) 


Begin- 
ning of 
experi- 
ment 


End of 
experiment 


Arithmetic mean 


Treat- 
ment 
desig- 
nation 




First 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 


Second 
layer 


Third 
layer 

.218 ±.0090 




3,000 CaO 


Planted (oats) 


1 73 ) 
74 
75 

( 76 J 


0.58 


( - 21 

1 .20 

.19 

( .24 


.18) 
.24 
.23 
.22 J 


.210 ±.0073 


L 


3,000 CaO 


Unplanted 


f 77 ) 

78 

79 
[80 J 


0.58 


f -18 
• .22 

.20 

( .18 


.22 1 

.19 

.23 

.18 J 


.195 ±.0073 


.205 ±.0098 


Li 



INTERPRETATION OF ANALYTICAL DATA 

The amounts of calcium present in the analyzed layers of soil at the 
end of the experiments, from the pots that had received the same calcium 
treatment, varied to some extent, as is seen from tables 5 to 9. The 
variation in the calcium content of the soil from pots similarly treated 
appears to be about as great as that shown by a comparison of differently 
treated pots. In view of this fact, it became necessary to determine 
the experimental error of the investigation, before any definite conclusions 
could be drawn regarding the movement of calcium thru the soil, in 
relation to the following points: (1) Did the analyzed soil layers contain 
more calcium at the end of the experiments than was contained in the 
original soils at the beginning of the investigation? (2) Did the layer 
of soil adjoining the one treated with calcium contain more of this element 
than the layer farther removed? (3) If calcium had moved thru the soil, 
did the degree of movement vary with smaller or larger applications of 
this constituent? In order to draw conclusions accurately from the data 
presented, the arithmetical mean value with its probable error, for the 
amount of calcium present in the soil layers resulting from different 
calcium treatments, was determined. These values are given in the 
tables and are used in interpreting the results of the investigation. For 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 317 

convenience the letters in the extreme right-hand column of each table 
are used to designate the different pot treatments. 

Peter's formula as given by Mellor (1909) was used in determining 
the probable errors. According to this formula ; the probable error, R, 
of the arithmetical mean of a series of observations is 

2 (+ v) 
R = ± 0.8453 -—!==■ 

n\n-i 

in which - (+ v) denotes the sum of the deviations of every observation 
from the mean, their sign being disregarded, and n denotes the number 
of observations actually made. The increase of calcium in one layer of 
soil over that in another layer, in pots similarly or dissimilarly treated, 
or the amount of calcium present in the soil from a calcium-treated pot 
over that in the original soil at the beginning of the experiment, can be 
determined by subtracting the arithmetical mean value of calcium for any 
one particular soil from that for any other soil, the probable error of the 
difference being derived from the formula 

E = \ E ! 2 + E 2 - 

in which Ei is the probable error of one mean, and E 2 the probable error 
of the other. This procedure is followed in explaining the results of the 
experiments shown in tables 5 to 9. 

A comparison of the amounts of calcium found by analysis in the 
analyzed soil layers from pots that were similarly treated is given in 
table 10, which was compiled from the data given in tables 5 to 9 inclusive. 
This table shows that in eleven cases out of twenty there was a greater 
amount of calcium in the layer of soil adjoining the one that had been 
treated with calcium, that in eight of the cases the soil layer farther 
removed from the treated layer contained the greater percentage of 
calcium, and that in one case there was an equal amount of calcium in 
each of the untreated soil layers. The differences in the amounts of 
calcium in the two soil layers are not great enough to be of any conse- 
quence, however. Wood and Stratton (1910) have shown that in order 
to be significant, differences resulting from different treatments should 
be at least 3.8 times their probable error, corresponding to odds of 30 to 
1 that such differences are real and not due to normal variation. As none 
of the differences appearing in table 10 are significant, it is safe to con- 



318 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



elude that the soil layers which were analyzed did not differ in their 
calcium content for any one particular treatment. This being true, the 
remainder of the discussion of the results may be confined to a con- 
sideration of the soil layer adjacent to the layer receiving the calcium 
treatment. In every case, regardless of the position of the calcium-treated 
layers in the pots, this is the second layer of soil. 



TABLE 10. 



Comparison op the Amounts of Calcium in the Analyzed Layers of 
Soil from Pots Similarly Treated 



(For the differences to be significant, the mean must be 3.8 times the probable error) 







Layer 








Difference 


having 


Duration of 


No. of 


Treatment 


in amounts 


the greater 


experiment 


experi- 




of calcium 


amount of 
calcium 




ment 




In second and 










third layers 








A 


.020 ±.0109 


Third 






Ai 


.020 ±.0147 
.025 ±.0131 
.010 ±.0071 
.020 ±0061 


Second 
Second 
Third 
Second 


Six months 




B 




B! 




C 




Ci 


.030 ±.0142 


Third 






D 


.005 ±.0156 


Third 






Di 


.010 ±.0149 


Second 




1 


E 


.002 ±.0104 


Second 






Ei 


.010 ±.0131 


Second 






F 


.015 ±.0142 


Third 






Fi 


.020 ±0064 


Second 


Twelve months 






In first and 








second layers 








G 


003 ±.0138 


First 






G, 


.013 ±0119 


Second 








In second and 










third layers 








H 

I 


.000 ±.0104 
.020 ±0069 


Second 


Twelve months 


2 


J 


.003 ±.0104 


Second 






K ■ 


.012 ±.0167 


Second 






L 

L. 


.008 ±0116 
010 ±0122 


Third 
Third 


Five months 


3 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



319 



Results of experiment 1 

The differences in the percentage of calcium in the second layer of 

soil, resulting from different calcium treatments, are shown in table 11. It 

is evident from this table that in the one case when the mean is greater 

than 3.8 times the probable error, the soil from the pots receiving treat- 



TABLE 11. 



Comparison of the Amounts of Calcium in the Second Layer of Soil 
from Pots Differently Treated in Experiment 1 



(For the differences to be significant, the mean must be 3.8 times the probable error) 



Treatments 
compared 


Difference in 
amounts of 
calcium in 

second layer 
of soil 


Treat- 
ment 
showing 
greater 
amount of 
calcium 


Duration of 
experi- 
ment 


Layer of 

soil in 

which 

calcium 

was placed 


Calcium 
treatments 
compared 


A and Ai 


.055 ±.0156 
.040 ±.0137 
.075 ±.0088 


A 
B 
C 


Six months 


First 




B and Bi 




C and Ci 


Equivalent 




quantities of 


D and Di 

E and Ei 

F and F! 


.037 ±0142 
.015 ±.0078 
.032 ±.0095 


D 
E, 
F 


Twelve 
months 


CaO and 
CaCOs 






A and B 


.015 ±.0156 
.015 ±.0109 
.030 ±.0131 


A 
C 
C 


Six months 


First 




A and C 




B and C 


D i ff e r e n t 
quantities of 
CaO 


D and E 


.035 ±.0115 
.015 ±.0122 
.020 ±0095 


D 
D 

F 


Twelve 
months 


D and F 




E and F 








G and Gi 


.002 ±.0163 


G 


Twelve 
months 


Third 


Equi valent 
quantities of 
CaO and 
CaC0 3 





ment C contained more calcium in the second layer than did the soil 
from the pots receiving treatment Ci. C being greater than Ci, and the 
difference between A and Ai being almost without the experimental 
error, it appears that the second layer of soil from the pots that were 
leached for six months contained more calcium when the first layer had 
been treated with burned limestone than when the first layer had received 
a treatment of ground limestone. When the soil with similar treatments 



320 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



was leached for twelve months, this relationship between the burned and 
the ground limestone treatments is not shown, as can be seen from the 
table. It seems reasonable to believe that the results from the soil that 
was leached for the longer period are nearer the truth, as this soil had a 
longer time in which to become adjusted to the conditions of the experi- 
ment. If this assumption is true, it can be concluded from the results 
given in table 11 that the burned limestone did not move downward in 
the soil more rapidly than did the ground limestone. The table also 
reveals the fact that there was no more calcium present in the second 
layer of soil resulting from larger applications of burned limestone than 
there was from smaller applications of this substance, and that there 
was no appreciable difference between the amounts of calcium present 
in the second layer of soil from the pots that had been treated with either 
burned limestone or ground limestone in the third layer. 

The question now arising is whether or not the amounts of calcium 
present in the second layer of soil from the pots in experiment 1 which 
were treated with burned limestone (since the tendency was for the pots 
treated with burned limestone to contain more calcium in the second 
soil layer than those treated with ground limestone) are large enough, 
when compared with the amount of calcium in the soil at the beginning 

TABLE 12. Comparison of the Amounts of Calcium Found in the Second Later op 
Soil at the End of Experiment 1, with the Amount Present in the Soil at the 
Beginning of the Experiment 

(For the differences to be significant, the mean must be 3.8 times the probable error) 



Treatment 



Calcium 

present in 

second layer 

of soil 

at end of 
experiment 



Calcium 

present in 

soil at 

beginning of 

experiment 



Difference 
in calcium 



Duration of 
experiment 



.370 ±.0098] 
.355 ±.0122 
.385 ±.0049 



.328 ±.0156 



.042 ±.0184 
.027 ±.0198 
.057 ±.0164 



Six months 



.340 ±.0098 
.305 ±.0061 
.325 ±.0073 
.318 ±.0066 



.328 ±0156 



.012 ±.0184 
.023 ±.0168 
.003 ±.0172 
.010 ±0169 



Twelve months 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 



321 



of the experiment, to show that there was an upward or a downward 
movement of this constituent during the course of the experiment. Such 
a comparison is made in table 12. Treatment C shows a downward, 
movement of calcium into the second soil layer that is almost within 
certainty; but since treatments A, B, D, E, and F do not indicate such a 
movement, it can be concluded that there has been no downward move- 
ment of calcium within the soil. No upward movement of calcium 
resulted from treatment G, as can be seen from the table. 

Results of experiments 2 and 3 

The results of experiments 2 and 3 are interpreted in the same way 
as are those of experiment 1, and are summarized in tables 13 and 14: 

TABLE 13. Comparison of the Amounts of Calcium Found in the Second Layer 
of Soil at the End of Experiment 2, with the Amount Present in the Soil at the 
Beginning of the Experiment 

(Limestone added in equal amounts. For the differences to be significant, the mean must 

be 3 . 8 times the probable error) 



Treat- 
ment 


Calcium 

present in 

second layer 

of soil 

at end of 

experiment 


Calcium 

present in 

soil at 

beginning of 

experiment 


Difference 
in calcium 


Duration 
of 
experi- 
ment 


Layer 

of soil 

in which 

calcium 

was 
placed 


Fineness of lime- 
stone applied 


H 

1 

J 
Iv 


.328 ±0085 

.285 ±0049 

.298 ±.0085 
.310 ±.0146 


.300 ±.0154 


.028 ±.0176 

.015 ±.0162 

.002 ±.0176 
.010 ±.0212 


Twelve 
months 


First 


H— Thru 10-mesh 
sieve, held on 32- 

mesh 
I — Thru 50-mesh 
sieve, held on 100- 

mesh 
J— Thru 200-mesh 

sieve 
K — Precipitated 
CaCOs 



There was no movement of calcium from the first to the second layer 
of soil in the pots that were treated with ground limestone at the rate 
of 9000 pounds to the acre, regardless of the fineness to which the lime- 
stone had been ground, nor with an equivalent quantity of precipitated 
calcium carbonate. This fact is well brought out by the figures in table 13. 
The differences shown in the table between the amount of calcium in 
the soil at the beginning of the experiment and that found in the second 
soil layer at the end of the experiment are not great enough to indicate 
any movement of this element. 



322 



Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



In table 14 it is shown clearly that growing oats on the potted soil 
treated with burned limestone at the rate of 3000 pounds to the acre had 
no influence on the downward movement of calcium thru the soil. There 
was no movement of calcium in the soil either with or without the growth 

TABLE 14. Comparison of the Amounts of Calcium in the Second Layer of Soil 
from Planted and Unplanted Pots in Experiment 3 

(Calcium added in equal amounts as burned limestone. For the differences to be significant, 
the mean must be 3.8 times the probable error) 



Treatments compared 


Difference 

in amounts 

of calcium in 

second layer 

of soil 


Treatment 
showing 
greater 

amount of 
calcium 


Duration 

of 

experiment 


Layer of 

soil in 

which 

calcium 

was placed 




.015 ±.0103 


L 


Five months 


First 






L and Z* 


.010 ±0088 


Z 











*Z (original soil) = .220 ± .0049 



of plants, as is shown by a comparison of the calcium present in the second 
soil layer at the end of the experiment with that present in the soil at 
the time when the experiment was begun. 



SUMMARY 

Calcium applied to a clayey silt loam soil in the form of burned lime- 
stone, ground limestone, or precipitated calcium carbonate, did not 
move downward in the soil to any appreciable extent when the soil was 
leached in pots for one year with distilled water. 

The soil from some of the pots that were leached for six months showed 
a slight movement of calcium when the soil had been treated with burned 
limestone, while the soil from the pots leached for twelve months with 
similar treatments did not show such a movement. This inconsistency 
cannot be explained unless there was a mechanical movement of calcium 
in the soil from certain of the pots that were leached for six months. 
As hereinbefore stated, the results obtained from the soil leached for 
the longer period are given preference over the others, and this permits 



The Translocation of Calcium in a Soil 323 

the conclusion that neither small nor large applications of burned or 
ground limestone resulted in a downward movement of calcium. 

Calcium incorporated with the soil as burned or ground limestone 
and placed in the bottom of the pots did not move by diffusion into the 
upper soil layers. 

No . movement of ground limestone thru the soil was evident when 
applied at the rate of 9000 pounds to the acre, irrespective of the fineness 
to which the rock had been ground. There was no difference in the 
movement of limestone ground to pass a 200-mesh sieve and that held 
on a 32-mesh sieve. 

Precipitated calcium carbonate when applied to the soil in large amounts 
did not move downward to the untreated adjacent soil. 

Oats grown in pots on the soil that had been treated with burned lime- 
stone had no effect in bringing about a descent of calcium. 

It seems logical to believe that a soil deficient in calcium will absorb 
this constituent from the drainage water as it percolates thru the soil. 
No doubt this occurs, but the amount held by the soil is evidently so 
small that it cannot be detected by a chemical analysis. Conclusions 
drawn from small differences of calcium found in soil upon analysis are 
hardly trustworthy, as it is often difficult to obtain concordant results 
from the same sample of soil. When small differences are calculated 
to pounds of calcium in an acre foot of soil, as is often done, the real 
value of such results is questionable. 

CONCLUSION 

The results of this investigation are summarized briefly in the following 
statement: 

The translocation of calcium thru a clayey silt loam soil with a rather 
large lime requirement is extremely slow, since in these experiments no 
upward nor downward movement of this element was perceptible twelve 
months after small, large, or excessive amounts of calcium salts were 
applied to the soil. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The writer desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to Professor T. 
Lyttleton Lyon, under whose direction this work was done. 



324 Benjamin Dunbar Wilson 



LITERATURE CITED 

Ames, J. W., and Gaither, E. W. Soil investigations. Ohio Agr. Exp. 
Sta. Bui. 261:449-512. 1913. 

Ames, J. W., and Schollenberger, C. J. Liming and lime requirement 
of soil. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 306:279-396. 1916. 

Broughton, L. B. How lime is distributed through and lost from soils. 
Maryland Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 166:285-326. 1912. 

Hall, A. D., and Miller, N. H. J. The effect of plant growth and of 
manures upon the retention of bases by the soil. Roy. Soc. London. 
Proc. 77b: 1-32. 1905. 

King, F. H. Investigations in soil management, p. 1-168. (Reference 
on p. 62-86.) 1904. 

McIntire, W. H. Results of thirty years of liming. Pennsylvania 
State Coll. Rept. 19 11-12 2 : 64-75. 1913. 

Mellor, J. W. Higher mathematics for students of chemistry and 
physics, p. 1-641. (Reference on p. 524.) 1909. 

Shorey, Edmund C, Fry, William H., and Hazen, William. Calcium 
compounds in soils. Journ. agr. research 8:57-77. 1917. 

Smith, Eugene A. Table of analyses of Alabama soils and subsoils. 
In Report on the cotton production of the State of Alabama. Tenth 
U. S. Census (1880) 6 2 : 71-74. 1884. 

Snyder, Harry. The chemical composition of soils. In Soil investi- 
gations. Minnesota Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 65 : 1-39. 1899. 

Veitch, F. P. Comparison of methods for the estimation of soil acidity. 
Amer. Chem. Soc. Journ. 26:637-662. (Reference on p. 659.) 1904. 

Summary of experiments on the relation of soil acidity to 

fertility.* In Proceedings of the twenty-first annual convention of the 
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. U. S. Bur. Chem. 
Bui. 90:183-187. 1905. 

White, J. W. The results of long continued use of ammonium sulphate 
upon a residual limestone soil of the Hagerstown series. Pennsylvania 
State Coll. Rept. 1912-13 2 : 55-104. 1914. 

Wilson, James K. Calcium hypochlorite as a seed sterilizer. Amer. 
journ. bot. 2:420-427. 1915. 

Wood, T. B., and Stratton, F. J. M. The interpretation of experi- 
mental results. Journ. agr. sci. 3:417-440. 1910. 

Memoir 15, Insects Injurious to the Hop in New York, the second preceding number in this series of 
publications, was mailed on November 19, 1918. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 672 739 A WE 




